Heba Jalil

Subscribe to Heba Jalil's Posts
Contact:Read more about Heba Jalil

Welcome to the latest installment of Arnold & Porter’s Virtual and Digital Health Digest. This digest covers key virtual and digital health regulatory and public policy developments during February and early March 2026 from the the United Kingdom, and European Union.

February 2026 saw a period of substantial regulatory activity across both the UK and EU, particularly in relation to AI governance, medical technologies, and data protection. In the UK, the policy landscape continued to evolve with initiatives affecting the regulation of medical devices, clinical research, and AI deployment. Key developments included the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s (MHRA) consultation on the indefinite recognition of CE-marked medical devices, record levels of medical device testing, and the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority’s (PMCPA) revised guidance on the use of social media. AI remained a major focus in the UK, with the UK government’s response to the consultation on the AI Management Essentials tool, increased industry involvement in the UK AI Security Institute’s alignment program, and feedback relating to governmental research on AI adoption across UK businesses. Additional international collaboration efforts included UK engagement at the India AI Impact Summit and an expanded science and technology partnership with Japan, as well as the launch of the first-ever AI Strategy for UK Research and Innovation.

Continue Reading Virtual and Digital Health Digest – February 2026

Today, 6 March 2026, the Council of the European Union (“Council”) published the provisional agreement on the reform of the EU pharmaceutical legislation and the new Directive [link] and Regulation [link]. Formal adoption by the European Parliament and the Council is expected in the coming months. 

Continue Reading Provisional text of the political agreement on the reform to the EU Regulatory Framework for Medicinal Products is published

On 23 October 2025, Advocate General (“AG”) Emiliou delivered his opinion in Case C-118/24: Laboratoires Eurogenerics and Theramex France.[1]

The AG opines on three key questions regarding the use of the decentralised procedure for generic medicinal products:

(i) The national courts of the EU Member States are allowed by EU law to judicially review the legality of a marketing authorisation (“MA”) granted via the decentralised abridged procedure where it is alleged that the medicinal product in question does not meet the criteria of a generic medicinal product. This is applies even if the judicial review is conducted by a national court in an EU Member State other that the reference Member State for the decentralised marketing authorisation procedure.

(ii) The applicant seeking such judicial review does not need to be the marketing authorisation holder for the reference medicinal product or the applicant for the generic marketing authorisation. The applicant could also be a third party with a vested interest, such as the marketing authorisation holder for a biosimilar medicinal product which will be competing with the newly authorised generic medicinal product. This conclusion by the AG remains unaffected by the fact that such applicant  may not be admissible if the action was brought at EU level to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) if the direct and individual concern of the applicant is not demonstrated. According to the AG, it is for the EU Member States in the framework of their procedural autonomy to decide whether a right to challenge an MA exists in these circumstances.

(iii) Chemically synthesised products are not precluded from meeting the criteria to be a generic of a reference biological medicinal product.

This third finding will, if followed by the CJEU, also apply to the centralised marketing authorisation procedure and arguably facilitate market access for synthetic copies of biological medicinal products. It would mean that, in practice, applicants for generics of biological medicinal products would not be required to submit additional pre-clinical and/or clinical data (as opposed to biosimilar applicants) and may potentially benefit, once authorised, from more advantageous pricing and reimbursement conditions (e.g., substitutability at pharmacy level which may not be available for biosimilar medicinal products).

Continue Reading Can a chemically synthesised medicine be authorised as a generic of a biological medicine? And who can challenge this?

On 22 July 2025, the European Commission adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1466 (“Regulation”), updating the EU pharmacovigilance (or “PV”) rules by way of amendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 520/2012. The changes aim to clarify and strengthen certain pharmacovigilance obligations (some of which arguably reflect what is already the current practice and expectations of the EU PV inspectors).

The Regulation introduces a number of new compliance expectations and requirements for applicants and marketing authorisation holders (“MAHs”), some of which will start to apply before mid-August.

Continue Reading Updates to the EU Pharmacovigilance Rules: Key Takeaways for Marketing Authorisation Holders

The UK Government has recently published plans for the Life Sciences Sector and the NHS in England. In this blog post, we summarise these plans and some of the initial feedback that has been published by ABPI.  It is not surprising that there is a large amount of overlap between the two plans, albeit that the NHS 10 Year Plan is more rooted in the public sector. Both plans send a clear message: the Government recognises the vital role that life sciences companies must play in order to improve the UK’s standing as a centre for life sciences. The impact these plans will have on the Life Sciences industry, and whether they are enough to realise the Government’s ambitions, remains to be determined.

Continue Reading The UK Government has plans: what does this mean for the Life Sciences Sector?

Do discount campaigns on prescription-only medicines (POMs) run by mail order pharmacies lure patients into consuming medicinal products? The European Court of Justice (CJEU) in the case of Apothekerkammer Nordrhein (C-517/23) has held that they do not.

Following on from the AG Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar, which we provided an update on earlier in the year, this case is the latest in a stream of cases on advertising practices involving DocMorris, a Dutch mail-order pharmacy that supplies medicines to end customers in Germany. The CJEU concluded that the discount campaigns regarding unspecified POMs do not fall within the definition of “advertising of medicinal products” (Article 86(1) Directive 2001/83) as the discount is implemented at the point of purchase of the POM.  The decision of which product to prescribe has already been taken by a doctor and all the patient is left to do is choose the dispensing pharmacy. As such, the Court held that the purpose of the discount campaign is not to encourage patients to purchase medicinal products. Rather, it is simply to attract them to a specific pharmacy.

The facts of the case are set out in our previous blog available here.

Continue Reading An update from the European Court of Justice on discount campaigns run by mail order pharmacies

Welcome to the latest installment of Arnold & Porter’s Virtual and Digital Health Digest. This digest covers key virtual and digital health regulatory and public policy developments during March and early April 2025 from the United States, United Kingdom, and European Union.

The biggest change this month is that as of March 25, 2025, the European Health Data Space Regulation (EHDS Regulation) is now in force. This means that, as it is gradually implemented, companies will be able to request access to electronic health data for health care purposes, including for use in scientific research, and may be required to share certain health data that they hold. The implementation of the EHDS Regulation is likely to raise a number of questions, which future European Commission implementing regulations or guidelines may clarify.

Continue Reading Virtual and Digital Health Digest – April 2025

On February 24, 2025, new rules came into force in the UK transforming the public procurement landscape. The new regime aims to provide a simplified and flexible framework for contracting authorities when conducting procurement processes, including the purchase of medicinal products by the National Health Service (NHS).

Under the new Act, a number of elements of the procurement processes have changed, and we set out the background in our previous post. For tenderers, the changes are mainly procedural, including the framework for the tender process and the timelines, rather than fundamental changes to how the procurement will operate. Nevertheless, it is important to take note of the new procedures. We set out some of the key aspects in our Advisory.

Continue Reading UK Public Procurement Landscape Transformed: What Does It Mean for Medicines?

On 21 October 2024, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) announced that the UK will be the first country in the world to introduce a tailored framework for the manufacture of innovative medicines at or close to the location where a patient receives care.

A new statutory instrument was laid before the UK parliament to amend the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004, to provide a new regulatory framework to support the manufacture and supply of these innovative products. This includes:

  1. products with a very short shelf life and highly personalised medicines that mean they have to be manufactured close to the place where they are administered; known as Point of Care, or POC, products. This often applies to advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs), but could also be technologies such as 3D printing.
  2. products that are manufactured in a self-contained modular unit, to enable deployment from that site to other locations; known as Module Manufacture, or MM, products.

This new framework follows a consultation in 2021, discussed in a previous blog post. The consultation received overwhelming support, and 91% of responders agreed with the need for a new regulatory framework. At present, there is no specific framework that covers decentralised manufacturing of medicines in the UK, but as products become more innovative, and more personalised to the patient, the need for change has increased. At present, any on-site manufacturing has to rely on the hospital having obtained the necessary licences and having put in place the required quality, safety and traceability standards under the general framework. This leads to practical – and contractual – difficulties between the company and hospital sites.

The new framework seeks to provide the necessary regulatory oversight to ensure that POC and MM products have appropriate quality, safety, and efficacy attributes, whilst allowing increasing numbers of patients to benefit from these innovative products. According to the MHRA, the proposed regulation ensures that POC and MM products can be more easily made in or near a hospital setting and can get to the patients who need them safely and more quickly.

Continue Reading UK to implement novel framework for point of care manufacture of medicinal products

This digest covers key virtual and digital health regulatory and public policy developments during February 2024.

Of note, the UK continues to pursue a “pro innovation” flexible approach to the regulation of AI. As outlined in the UK government’s response to the public consultation, the government will develop a set of core principles for regulating AI, while leaving regulatory authorities, like the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), discretion over how the principles apply in their respective sectors. A central governmental function will coordinate regulation across sectors and encourage collaboration. The government’s aim with this approach is to enable the UK to remain flexible to address the changing AI landscape, while being robust enough to address key concerns. This is in sharp contrast to the position in the EU, where the EU AI Act is reaching the conclusion of the legislative process.

Continue Reading Virtual and Digital Health Digest, March 2024